Week 4 The Purpose of Criminal Punishment

In this weeks blog I will be discussing how I believe criminal punishment is split between retribution and prevention. On the retribution side it insist that only the pain of punishment can pay for offenders’ past crimes. In other words, punishment justifies itself. As for the prevention side utilitarians insist with equal passion the pain of punishment can and should be only a means to greater good, usually the prevention or at least the reduction of future crime. The principle of punishment holds that no crime can be said to occur where punishment has not been specified in the law. For example, a crime like larceny, would not be a crime if the law just said, “It is illegal to steal.” Punishment for the crime must be specified so that if a person is found guilty of violating the law, sanctions can be lawfully imposed. Our text book reads that punishment, in the sense of a sanction imposed for a criminal offense, consist of five elements:

·         It must involve an unpleasantness to the victim.

·         It must be for an offense, actual or supposed.

·         It must be of an offender, actual or supposed

·         It must be the work of personal agencies; in other words it must not be the natural consequence of an action.

·         It must be imposed by an authority or an institution against whose rules the offense has been committed… (Banks 2013, p.114).

When dealing with retribution it can be argued that punishment benefits not only society, but also criminals. For example, just as society feels satisfied by paying back criminals, giving criminals their punishment, offenders benefit by putting right their evil. It is my opinion that society pays back criminals by retaliation; criminals pay back society by accepting responsibility through punishment. Which I feel both paybacks are at the heart of retribution. Retribution has several appealing qualities. It assumes free will, thereby enhancing individual autonomy. However, determinists which include most criminologists, reject the free-will assumption underlying retribution.

Supporters of prevention argue that prevention looks forward and inflicts pain, not for its own sake, but to prevent future crime. As I researched some tools on prevention I discovered that theirs four kinds of prevention. 1. General deterrence, 2. Special deterrence, 3. Incapacitation, and 4. Rehabilitation (Samaha 2011, p.24). These four ideas formulate the classical deterrence theory. In other words these four indicate rational human beings will not commit crimes if they know that the pain of punishment outweighs the pleasure gained from committing crimes.

Finally, I believe if we could obtain empirical support for criminal punishment, deterrence is unjust because it punishes for example’s sake. I feel punishment should not be a sacrifice to the common good; it’s only just in my opinion if it’s administered for the redemption of particular individuals, say the retibutionists. To be clearer I believe punishment is personal and individual, not general and societal. Please do not misunderstand me I believe that those who commit crime should be punish. However, I feel as long as offenders are in fact guilty, punishing them is personal. It is noteworthy I mention that I believe we live in a country where it is just to use individual punishment for society’s benefit. Historically, societies has justified punishment in my opinion on the grounds of retribution. But, this in my opinion will soon be replaced by rehabilitation because rehabilitation programs can reform offenders. The “if they knew better they would do better” theme will soon dominate the reform discussion widely publicized on the effectiveness of treatment programs.  

 

References:

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justices Ethics (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Law (10th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning 

Week Three "Private Prisons"

In this particular blog for week three I focused my attention on “private prisons.” Recognizing that over the past 25+ years, entrepreneurs have argued that they can build and run prisons as effectively, safely, and humanely as any level of government. In fact they claim that they can do so more efficiently, which saves taxpayers money. However, this remain very controversial giving rise to many issues that do not validate this claim. It is noteworthy I mention that this is one of the myths in corrections, because the reality from research in many cases shows that private prisons are no more cost-effective than public prisons. A variety of other factors, such as security level, inmate population size, and the age of the facility, influence a prison’s daily per diem cost. Related to this debate is the constitutional question of whether, and to what extent the state and privately own facilities address constitutional violations against inmates. As I discuss this matter I want my readers to recall that Section 1983 allows prisoners to sue public officials for constitutional violations. Private companies acting under the color of state law had originally assumed that they could be sued under Section 1983. But the U.S. Supreme Court examined the question of the liability of guards in private prisons. The Court said that private prison guards did not have this legal protection and are fully liable for their actions when they violate a protected right.  
 

Subsequently, the arguments on private prisons are associated with a large amount of issues ranging from constitutional violations to private corporations attempting to make a profit on the punishment of people. Historically, the prison system has in my opinion profited from the use of prison labor as a standard feature. In this sense, profit and incarceration have a long tradition of association.

  

 

 

Reference:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+video+of+private+prisons&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=2A17E64626224EE997CA2A17E64626224EE997CA

In this particular blog chapter six discusses Ethics in Corrections. What should be the basis for an ethical system of guarding prisoners? The first factor is the need to protect the staff and consider security the dominant purpose of a prison. When dealing with ethics in corrections there are three models of incarceration that has predominated since the early years: custodial, rehabilitation, and reintegration. Each reflects one style of institutional organization. For example, the custodial model assumes that prisoners have been incarcerated for the purpose of incapacitation, deterrence, or retribution. The rehabilitation model emphasizes treatment programs designed to reform the offender. Lastly, the reintegration model is linked to the structure and goals of community corrections. This particular model emphasizes maintaining offenders’ ties to family and community. It is noteworthy that I mention that we can find correctional facilities that build off each of these models. However, with my evolvement and communication with those affiliated with the prison system it appears that most prisons are mainly custodial. Most likely because it emphasizes security, discipline, and order, which subordinate the prisoner to guards and higher authority.

 Corrections is a people-processing operation, its personnel are its resource. A number of studies have attempted to explain the basis and nature of this coercive power and authority. It is the exercise of this power that creates ethical issues and dilemmas. The most obvious fact about the prison environment is that guards are vested with power and authority over the prisoners which they exercise power to control inmates in accordance with prison rules and regulations. Our text discusses five forms of guard power: legitimate, coercive, reward, expert, and referent. With legitimate power, guards are invested with authority to command as a result of their position as a guard of prisoners. It is the position of guard itself within the institutional structure that confers the right to give instructions and to be obeyed. In short, a guard's command are obeyed because they are the commands of a guard, and prisoners comply by virtue of their status as prisoners. Prisons are expected to be impersonal, quasi-military organizations where strict discipline, minimal amenities, and restrictions on freedom carry out the punishment.

 Subsequently, because prisons are expected to pursue many different and often incompatible goals, it would seem that they are almost doomed to fail.